|
|
LUDWIG VON PASTOR'S
HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
CHAPTER VII.
Paul V Fosters the Religious Orders.
Galileo and the Roman Inquisition. Nomination of Cardinals.
The religious Orders were the object of Paul V’s constant solicitude and
the care he bestowed on them bore abundant fruit. That which he had especially
at heart was the appointment of good Superiors and the preservation of
discipline. A papal decree of 4th December, 1605,
stressed anew an ordinance already passed by the Council of Trent and renewed
by Clement VIII, by which monasteries were forbidden to admit more members than
their revenues could support. Another general ordinance of 1st September, 1608, laid great stress on the rule of enclosure,
especially as regards convents of nuns. A Bull of 23rd May, 1606, revoked all particular indulgences which, up to that time, had been
granted to individual Orders and Congregations. It gave an accurate list of the
indulgences which members of Religious Orders properly so called, that is
Orders with solemn vows and strict enclosure, might gain from that time
onwards. Between 1608-1612, the Pope appointed a special commission for the
purpose of revising the Benedictine Breviary. By a Brief of 1st October, 1612, the entire Benedictine Order was granted
permission to use the reformed Breviary, and in 1616 the Congregation of Rites
changed the permission into a command.
For the better preservation of discipline, the Benedictine Congregation
of Monte Cassino, which held so important a position in the monasticism of
Italy, was divided by Paul V into seven Provinces, namely the Roman, Tuscan,
Neapolitan, Sicilian, Venetian, Lombardic, and Ligurian provinces. For their
government new statutes were laid down and these were repeatedly altered in
subsequent years.
Paul V approved the union of the Basilians of
Italy which had been effected by Gregory XIII. The
Spanish branch of the Order was authorized to make five new foundations, one of
them at Madrid. On 19th April, 1616, the Cistercian
monasteries of the provinces of Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, Catalonia, and
Navarre were united in a new congregation which was to be subject in all things
to the General of the Order though it was also to have a Vicar-General of its
own. Distance and other obstacles had prevented the Cistercian Abbots from
holding regular visitations. By the appointment of a Vicar-General it was hoped
to remedy this disadvantage. Similar considerations led to the separation of
the reformed Congregation of Dominicans founded at Toulouse, in 1596, from the
other provinces of the Order.
Paul V watched with particular care over the Institute founded by Philip Neri. On 21th February,
1612, he solemnly approved the Constitutions of the Oratorians.
Shortly afterwards a decree was published which forbade the issue of further
statutes under the name of the great apostle of Rome and the foundation, in the
Eternal City, of other Oratories, without the leave of the Superior of the
Roman Oratory. The new foundations, in Italy, which marked the pontificate of
Paul V were those of Aquila, Casale, Bologna,
Perugia, Ripatransone, and Fossombrone.
For the Congregation of the reformed Camaldolese hermits of Montecorona Paul V founded a house near
Frascati.
To the Theatines Paul V not only granted the confirmation of all their
privileges, but he also helped them to make new foundations at Ravenna and
Bergamo. The Pope shared the grief of the Order at the death, on 10th November, 1608, of one of its most deserving members, Andrew
Avellino, who for half a century had been indefatigable in the confessional, in
visiting the sick, and in his efforts for the reform of the clergy and the
spread of his own Institute. Lorenzo Scupoli, a
disciple of Avellino, died two years after his master. Scupoli is the author of one of the most famous ascetical works of the period, the Spiritual
Combat (Il Combattimento spirituale).
In the original Italian this golden book was published in innumerable editions and it has been translated into many languages. St.
Francis of Sales ranked it with a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ.
In 1610, Barnabites, whom Henry IV had summoned into Bearn, in 1608, to labour for the conversion of the Huguenots, were authorized
by Paul V to found colleges everywhere with the consent of the ordinaries.
Subsequently the Pope eased the conditions for the reception of new candidates
into this Congregation of regular Clerics. In 1608, the Institute possessed
twenty-six colleges in Italy so that a division into three provinces became
necessary. The privileges of the Somaschans were also
confirmed anew. Papal approbation was likewise bestowed upon the Spanish
Recollects, the Italian Congregation of the Fratelli Ambrosiani,
the Regular Clerics Minor, the Annunziate, founded in
the neighbourhood of Geneva by Maria Vittoria Fornari (died 1617), and the monastery of Hermits of St.
Augustine of the Strict Observance, founded by Andrea del Guasto,
at Centorbi. The Italian Servites were also the objects of various favours. Paul V
likewise supported the generous efforts of Anna Juliana Caterina of Gonzaga,
widow of the archduke Ferdinand, to introduce into Innsbruck first the Servite
nuns and later on the friars. The reformed
Congregation of Spanish Trinitarians, founded in 1594 by John Baptist de la
Conception, was erected into a regular Order divided into two provinces but
with only one provincial.
The Borghese Pope bestowed particular care upon the new Orders and
Congregations which devoted themselves to teaching and to the care of the sick.
The Congregation of nursing Brothers founded in Spain by John of God received divers privileges from Paul V and was by him erected into a
canonical Order under the rule of St. Augustine, a fourth vow, concerning the
care of the sick, being added to the three essential vows of religion. The
ordinances laid down, in 1611, for the Spanish houses, were extended, in 1617,
to the German, French and Polish foundations. In 1617, the Pope approved the
Constitutions which a General Chapter, held in the Roman house of San Giovanni Calabita, had drawn up for this, the most important of all
male nursing Orders. In 1605, the philanthropic Order was introduced into
Austria by Prince Eusebius of Liechtenstein; its first hospital and Convent
were erected at Feldsberg.
A no less noble fruit of the Church’s vitality in the period of the
Catholic restoration was the Institute founded by Camillo de Lellis, who proved a pioneer in the nursing field. Sixtus V approved it in 1586; five years later Gregory XIV
formally erected it into an Order. In 1605, Paul V divided it into five
provinces, those of Rome, Milan, Naples, Bologna, and Sicily.
Camillo de Lellis lived to see his institute
attain to a membership of three hundred religious. Paul V greatly esteemed the
saintly man and was always ready to fall in with his wishes. However, the
strength of the indefatigable labourer was exhausted.
The growth of his Order had been rapid and it was now
spread over the whole of Italy: in addition to the house at Rome there were other
establishments at Naples, Milan, Genoa, Bologna, Florence, Ferrara, Mantua,
Messina, Palermo and at various places in the Abruzzi. All this had required
numerous and exhausting journeys, which had undermined the health of Camillo
who had never been a robust man. For this reason, and with the consent of Paul
V, he resigned his office of Superior General on 2nd October, 1607, at the residence of the Cardinal Protector Ginnasio.
But even then he would not rest. In 1609, he visited
the hospitals at Naples, Milan, and Genoa, and the year 1612 was spent in the
Abruzzi where he assisted in practical and energetic fashion the people of his
native place, Bucchianico, during a period of famine.
In 1613 he accompanied the Superior General on a visitation of the houses of
Lombardy. A serious illness contracted at Genoa forced him to return to Rome.
There he died, in the Mother house of the Order, near
St. Mary Magdalen’s church, on 14th July, 1614, at the age of sixty-four. Paul
V sent him, through his secretary, the apostolic blessing and a plenary indulgence. Camillo was buried near the high altar of the church
of St. Magdalen. A plain cross of bricks marked the spot for a time. After his
beatification by Benedict XIV, the precious remains of the servant of God were given
a resting place in a specially erected chapel on the right
hand side of the church. Not long afterwards Sanzio Cicatelli, a disciple of Camillo, published a life of
the founder of the Fathers of a good death, as the sons of Camillo were
called because, whilst they cared for the bodies of the sick, they also strove
to help their souls. The biography was dedicated to Paul V who thereafter
continued to favour an Order in which the spirit of Christian charity and
self-sacrifice was ever kept alive as the most precious inheritance bequeathed
by the holy founder to his children. The Romans could never forget what Camillo
de Lellis had done in the hospitals and how, during
the very last days of his life, he had dragged himself from bed to bed to make
quite sure that nothing was wanting to the sick. Together with Philip Neri he was revered as a Patron of the Eternal City.
Other contemporaries of Camillo de Lellis were
the saintly and learned John of Jesus and Mary, of the Order of Discalced
Carmelites, who lived at Frascati, and Joseph of Calasanza,
who laboured in Rome. Following the example of
Clement VIII, the Borghese Pope assisted with an annual gift of two hundred
scudi the school founded by that friend of the people, which, because it was a
gratuitous one, proved an immense boon for the Eternal City. With the
assistance of several Cardinals and other benefactors, Calasanza,
in 1611, secured the Palazzo Torres for his establishment. The fusion of Calasanza’s foundation with the Congregation of the Clerics
Regula of Mary, of Lucca, which had taken place in 1614, proved unsuccessful.
Paul V suspended it on 6th March, 1617, at the same
time declaring the Society of Calasanza an
autonomous, independent Congregation whose scope it was to give gratuitous
instruction to children, especially to the children of the poorer classes. Calasanza became the Superior of the new Congregation of
the Poor Clerics of the Mother of God of the Pious
Schools, also called, after the Pope, the Pauline Congregation. He now changed
his name into Joseph a Matre Dei; his companions
likewise assumed new names. To the usual simple vows they added a fourth, namely, gratuitously to instruct the young, more
especially the children of the poor. Paul V founded a house of the new
Congregation at Moricone, in the Sabine country, a
property of the Borghese. Their church in Rome was that of San Pantaleone, near the Palazzo Torres, which had been
bestowed on Calasanza in 1614, and was subsequently
restored by him.
THE POPE’S ASSISTANCE TO EDUCATION.
In many other ways also Paul V gave proof of his solicitude for the
Christian education of youth in Rome, thus he assisted the Congregation of
Christian Doctrine with an annual alms of two hundred
scudi, and approved their privileges and constitutions. In 1607, he raised the
Association into an archconfraternity with its seat at St. Peter s. For the purpose of combating Calvinism by means of solid
instruction, Cesar de Bus, a Canon of Avignon, founded in that city, in 1592, a
special Society whose untiring Superior he remained until his death in 1607.
His successor, Pere Vigier, greatly desired to
transform the Society into a formal and regular Congregation with solemn vows.
This Paul V granted in 1616, but only on condition that the Society amalgamated
with the Somaschans.
After the long-drawn party strife of Huguenots and Leaguists,
France was enjoying the blessings of tranquillity.
Many new religious associations sprang up in that country, most of which
devoted themselves to education or to tending the sick. To all these institutes
Paul V showed himself a generous patron and supporter. However, their action is
so closely linked with the Catholic revival in France that it must be described
when the story of this great movement comes to be told. In like manner the
activity of the two principal Orders of the period, the Jesuits and the Capuchins, both in France and in Germany, will be duly appraised when
certain developments of the Church in these two countries come to be described.
Two decrees of the Borghese Pope contributed greatly to the
consolidation and to the spread of the Capuchin Order, which, besides Cardinal
Anselm Marzato, included a great many distinguished
men in its ranks. In the first decree, dated 17th October, 1608, the Pope declared the Capuchins to be true and authentic members of the
Order of St. Francis and that their rule was in harmony with that of the Saint
of Assisi. The second decree, dated 23rd January,
1619, made them completely independent of the Conventuals. The Society was
raised to the rank of an autonomous Order, with its own General, who was to be
styled Minister Generalis fratrum minorum Sancti Francisci Capucinum. Paul V also furthered, by means of many
privileges, the spread of the Capuchins and their activity in the home mission.
The missionary activity in heathen lands on which they then entered, was
furthered by an authorization granted to them on September 5th, 1606, whereby
they were empowered, due regard being had to the ordinances of the Council of
Trent, to make new foundations throughout Spain. The story of the Church of
Spain, and in no less a degree that of France, Switzerland, and the holy Roman
empire, bears witness to the amazing activity displayed by the Capuchins in
assisting the pastoral clergy by means of missions and retreats, by the
introduction of the Forty Hours’ Prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, by
tending the sick during epidemics, and lastly by bringing heretics back to the
fold. What heroic spirit animated the Order of the Capuchins at that time is
best shown by the fact that the Church has raised to her altars no less than
six of its members all belonging to that period, namely Joseph of Leonissa (d. 1622), Laurence of Brindisi (d. 1619), Fidelis
of Sigmaringen (d. 1622), Benedict of Urbino (d.
1625), Agathangelus of Vendome (d. 1638), and Cassian
of Nantes (d. 1638). It was precisely during the pontificate of Paul V that the
Capuchins were extraordinarily successful as popular preachers. In this respect
the following were especially famous: Melchior of Orihuela (d. 1614), Francis of Seville (d. 1615), and Angelicus of Tudela (d. 1633) in Spain, John of Angers (d. 1620) and John Baptist of Avranches (d. 1629) in France; in Austria Thomas of Bergamo
(d. 1631) and Father Valerian, known as the “tall monk” (d. 1661).
But the most renowned preachers were sons of Italy. One of these, Giambattista Aguggiari, of Monza,
was the inspirer of a religious work of art of extraordinary originality.
Whilst he held the office of preacher at the famous shrine of the Madonna del
Monte, near Varese, in upper Italy, he suggested that the mountain track
leading up to the sanctuary should be embellished with fourteen chapels adorned
with frescoes and painted stucco statues representing the fifteen mysteries of
the Rosary. As in the Sacro Monte, near Varallo,
which was embellished in this fashion in the life time of St. Charles Borromeo, in the lay-out of the road nature and art form an
admirable blend, expressive of a common religious inspiration. In 1614, the
Franciscan Agostino Cassandra, a famous preacher, was appointed by the Pope to
the see of Gravina. The Pope also greatly esteemed
the Capuchin, Hyacinth of Casale. He was likewise on
terms of special intimacy with yet another Friar, Jerome of Narni.
This scion of a noble family had been a member of the Capuchin Order since
1578. He was a pupil, and inherited the eloquence of
Mathias Bellintani whom Charles Borromeo had extolled
as a truly apostolic preacher. No less a personage than Cardinal Bellarmine
passed the following judgment on Jerome of Narni: If th”e Apostle Paul were to come
back to preach the Lenten sermons at the same time as Father Jerome, I should
listen to the Apostle on one day and on the other to the Capuchin”. Paul V
confirmed this judgment when he appointed Jerome of Narni preacher of the Apostolic palace. The devout Capuchin discharged his office
with the utmost freedom. “When this mighty trumpet of the word of God resounded
from the pulpit of the Vatican”, a chronicler wrote, “the Cardinals were seen
to tremble”. After a sermon by Jerome on the duty of residence, Paul. V could
not cope with the requests of the Princes of the Church for farewell audiences,
so bent were they on returning to their sees. The Pope wished to make him a Cardinal but Jerome declared he preferred his poor Capuchin
habit to the purple. “It grieves me”, Paul V said, “that the Sacred College
should be deprived of such a man, but I rejoice at such an example of humility”.
Laurence of Brindisi similarly enjoyed a wide reputation as a preacher. By his
influence the Capuchins were enabled to enter Austria whilst the imperial army
owes to him its victory before Stuhlweissenberg, in
1601. In 1602 he was made General of his Order. He invariably journeyed on foot
when making the canonical visitations of the Capuchin houses in Italy, Spain, France and Germany, and everywhere he was revered as “the
holy General”. On the completion of his term of office, shortly after the
elevation of Paul V, the saintly man was at once entrusted with a fresh and
difficult mission in Germany. In 1612 there was question of his reappointment
as General but the lowly son of St. Francis succeeded
in persuading the electors to bestow their votes on Paul of Cesena. But he
could not escape being appointed Definitor-General. In 1617 Laurence mediated,
on behalf of the Pope, between Savoy and Mantua and in the following year he
was once more named Definitor-General. The people of Naples ardently longed to
have their crushing taxation eased. Such was their confidence in the old man
that, though his health was beginning to fail, they sent him on a deputation to
the court of Philip III, in October, 1618. His mission
was crowned with success but Laurence was unable to
return to his own country. He died in Lisbon, July 22nd, 1619. Already under
Urban VIII the rulers of Austria and Bavaria pressed for his beatification and
Cardinal Borghese had displayed special activity in the matter.
Whilst the term of office of the Superiors of the Capuchins was at first
limited to three years, to five after 1608, and after 1618 to six years, the
General of the Jesuits was appointed for life. The Society of Jesus was
particularly fortunate in that at this period the generalship was held by a man
who was eminently equal to his task, viz. Father Claude Aquaviva. Despite all
attacks from within and without, his tenure of office during close on
thirty-four years, was a period of wonderful development for the Society of
Jesus. This is shown, even if we leave on one side its missionaries and
ascetics, by the great number of scholars and writers which it counted in its
ranks at that period. Only the names of outstanding men can be mentioned here.
They include Gabriel Vasquez (d. 1604), Nicolas Orlandino (d. 1606), Thomas Sanchez (1610), Possevino (d.
1611), Skarga (d. 1612), Christopher Clavio (d. 1612), Francis Suarez (d. 1617), Lessius (d. 1623), Becanus (d.
1624), Gretser, Tanner, Layman and, towering above
them all, Bellarmine. The geographical expansion of the Order was likewise
amazing. According to a survey of 1616, during the sixty years that had elapsed
since the founder’s death, the Society had spread over the whole world. It
numbered thirty-two provinces, viz. five in Italy and as many in France; in
Spain four; three in Germany (the Upper-German, the Rhenish and the Austrian provinces); two in Flanders and one in Portugal, Poland, and
Lithuania. To the Portuguese province four others were adjoined, namely those
of Goa, Malabar, Japan and Brazil, whilst six
provinces were united to that of Spain, namely those of Sardinia, Peru,
Paraguay, New Granada, Mexico and the Philippine Islands. These thirty-two
provinces counted twenty-three professed houses, three hundred and seventy-two
colleges, forty-one noviciate houses, one hundred and
twenty-three residences and a personnel of 13,112
members.
It is easy to realize the slight significance, among such a crowd, of
the band of about thirty discontented men of whom there is frequent mention in
the story of the generalship of Aquaviva. If these people were able to kick up
so much dust, it was due solely to the backing of Philip II and the Spanish
Inquisition, and because their everlasting complaints and memorials ended by
making some impression on Sixtus V and Clement VIII.
The disturbance was only superficial, that is why it disappeared so
rapidly and without leaving any traces behind. The fifth General Congregation
of the Order, though it was occasioned by the discontented, did more than
disappoint them, for it greatly helped to put a stop to their machinations, and
even more so in that it was crowned by yet another approbation by the Holy See.
It had been the intention of the Congregation to petition Clement VIII for such
a confirmation; it was Paul V that granted it. The papal brief begins as
follows: “What great things the Society of Jesus has achieved in the service of
the Church, by spreading the faith, piety and religion, and what it still daily
accomplishes with ever growing success, is known to us and to the whole of
Christendom”. “Hence the devil” the Pope goes on, “daily strives to sow discord
within it. However, the Popes have made it their business to further and assist
the Society in every way, to the end that it may ever retain the purity and the
primitive splendour of its institute”. The purpose of
the Brief is sufficiently shown in the preamble itself: the machinations of the
agitators are not from the good Spirit; the well-being of the Order, or as the
Pope goes on to say, “the strength and the growth of this holy Society, which
it is impossible to praise sufficiently, depend wholly on the maintenance of
the constitution given by Ignatius of Loyola, and on the decrees of the General
Congregations”. Three ordinances of the fifth General Congregation are then
textually quoted, viz. the one dealing with the agitators; that which forbids
meddling with secular business and politics, and the decision that Superiors
should remain in office for an unlimited period. By his confirmation of these
decrees, the Pope annuls Clement VIII’s ordinance which limited the tenure of
office to three years. The Brief concludes with an approbation of the entire
Institute and all its privileges and spiritual powers or faculties. Stress is
laid on the life-tenure of office by the General; in fact the opening paragraphs of the document had already condemned the machinations
of the discontented against this point of the Constitutions.
The Brief addressed to the General admonished him to proceed with energy
against the disturbers of the peace. With this injunction Aquaviva complied in
an allocution at the next General Congregation. As he had declared at the
opening of the Congregation of 1608, the assembly had been convened for the
purpose of renewing the interior spirit and religious discipline. The decrees
that had been drawn up had no other aim. The provincials must deal energetically
with all agitators. Like his predecessor Clement VIII, Paul V in his turn
exhorted the assembled Fathers to practise humility
and, following in this also the example of his predecessor, he insisted on the
election of new Assistants of the General.
For the rest Paul V showed himself well-disposed towards the Jesuits.
The whole Order rejoiced and deemed it a very signal favour when, at the very
outset of his pontificate, the new Pope gave leave for the opening of the
process of the beatification of its founder and when, in 1609, he placed him in
the ranks of the Blessed.
GALILEO GALILEI'S ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERIES.
The pontificate of Paul V is memorable by reason of the first, much
discussed collision, between the Roman divines and the spokesmen of the new natural
sciences then in process of formation.
Just as the beginnings of modern astronomy are linked with the name of
Copernicus, so were the foundations of modern physics chiefly laid down by
Galileo Galilei. Galileo was born at Pisa, in 1564. From 1589 he taught in his
native city until the year 1592, when he went to Padua. Whilst the belief
prevailed that all the subjects discussed in Galileo’s works were his own
exclusive intellectual patrimony, the Pisan genius was simply hailed as the
sole creator of the new science of nature, as one who had, so to speak, created
it out of nothing. However, in the light of modern research, his position is
not quite so brilliant. Galileo had been anticipated; he made use of the labours of those that had gone before him, though he fails,
for the most part, to acknowledge his sources. On the other hand, if he took up
a thing, it seemed to grow and mature under his fingers. In the story of the
discovery of the thermometer and the pendulum clock, the telescope and the microscope,
his name must always be mentioned though his share in their invention cannot be
accurately ascertained in every instance. His highest and unquestioned claim to
fame is the impetus he gave to physical mechanics. The laws to which a falling
body, or one propelled into space, are subject, as well as those of the
pendulum, were definitely formulated by him. One
notable fruit of his observations was an accurate conception of the so-called
law of inertia. It was only in 1638, when already advanced in years, that he
published the results of his observations in the most mature of all his works.
The book was the fruit of the labours of a life-time, for these things had profoundly roused his
interest whilst he still lived in Pisa and Padua. Galileo established for all
time the axiom that only by observation and experiment may we trace the
phenomena of nature to their causes. Within these limits Galileo may deservedly
be called the creator of modern physics.
In 1609, news reached Italy that a Dutchman had constructed an optic
glass by means of which it was possible to see distant objects as distinctly as
if they were in immediate proximity. Thereupon, so he himself relates, Galileo
invented the telescope anew, constructed one that surpassed all similar
instruments of the period and forthwith pointed it to the starry heavens. From
now onwards discovery after discovery, so to speak, fell into his lap; the
radiant sun, so he was able to inform an astonished world, has its spots; the
moon is not a flat orb, on the contrary, it is covered with mountains; the
Milky Way and the nebulae are clusters of numberless stars; as for the planets,
Jupiter is accompanied by four moons; Mars appears now larger, now smaller;
like our own moon, Venus is seen at one time sickle-shaped, at another as a
full disc. He also saw the ring of Saturn even though he failed to identify it
as a ring.
These discoveries proved decisive factors in the subsequent career of
Galileo. What he had written until then could only be understood by scholars,
but as a result of those unheard of discoveries in the
sky the name of Galileo was on everybody’s lips. Kepler spoke enthusiastically; Clavius expressed high esteem. The Grand Duke of
Florence, whom Galileo had informed of his successes, bestowed on him the title
of ducal philosopher and mathematician, with an income of 1,000 gold florins. On the occasion of a visit to Rome in 1611, the savant, who
was becoming universally famous, had the highest honours lavished on him. People of repute in the world of learning, or in the State,
all clustered round Galileo. This was notably the case at the villa of Cardinal
Bandini and at the palace of Federigo Cesi, the founder of the flourishing Academia dei Linci, of which Galileo was
made a member on 25th April, 1611. The Jesuits
organized a solemn accademia in his honour; it was attended by a number of the most distinguished people of Rome, by counts and dukes, and by a great many
prelates, among whom there were at least three Cardinals. The Pope received
Galileo in audience and showed him the utmost favour. True, there were those
who refused to believe in the new discoveries; thus a
student of Bologna, one Martini Horky and a
Florentine nobleman, Francesco Sizzi, wrote against
him, but intelligent people paid no attention to them.
Galileo had gone to the Eternal City for the purpose of expounding his
discoveries before the highest Roman authorities and in order
to win them over to the teaching of Copernicus. At first, astronomy had
only been incidentally mentioned in his lectures, and even in the first years
of the seventeenth century Galileo still taught it according to the system of
Ptolemy. But when his discoveries in the sky had brought him fame, he strove to
retain and still further to strengthen the reputation he had won, by proving
the validity of the Copernican system. He imagined that the elucidation of his
own discoveries in the sky would be proof enough. Copernicus had already dealt
with the objection that in his system Venus must, from time to time, be seen in
crescent shape. He had sought a way out of the difficulty by certain ingenious
hypotheses. Galileo's discovery showed that this sickle shape was a fact and
the change in Venus’ appearance proved beyond controversy that the sun was the centre of the orbit of at least that one planet, as well as
of Mercury. Copernicus had seen himself compelled to change the earth’s moon
from an autonomous planet into a satellite of a planet. For the first time
Galileo now demonstrated the fact that planets may have moons. The consequence
was that if Ptolemy needed an intricate series of cycles and epicycles in order to account for the orbits of the planets, Galileo’s
system, as even Clavius admitted, was bound to become
even more complicated since the planets also had their own dependent planets.
The old assumption that the stars consisted of a peculiar, incorruptible matter
was thus confuted, for the change in the appearance of Venus showed that, like
the earth, it was a dark body that received its light from the sun.
It might have been better for science, as well as for Galileo, if after
these first astronomical discoveries he had turned once more to his own special
department, that of physics. In this field also, for he mastered it completely,
he might have deserved well of Copernicus. He did so, as a matter of fact, at a later date, when he cleared away, in large measure, the
objection made in the name of physics against the earth's movement in space.
However, the arguments in support of a new system of the universe, which he
deduced from his discoveries in the sky, are valueless for the reason alone
that everything he discovered can be made to fit harmoniously into the system
of Tycho Brahe, whilst his personal contribution went either wholly astray or
failed to get beyond Copernicus and lagged behind Kepler. It was only in 1686 that mathematical astronomy chanced upon a real
proof, when Newton demonstrated that according to the law of gravitation it was
impossible for the mighty ball of the sun to revolve round the diminutive earth
as its centre. A decisive proof based on astronomical
observation was delayed until 1725, when Bradley showed that all the fixed
stars described small ellipses within exactly the duration of a terrestrial
year, that the ellipses described by the stars situate towards the celestial
poles approach increasingly to the figure of a circle, whereas the stars situate
in the neighbourhood of the celestial equator
increasingly resolve into a simple straight line, and that this phenomenon is
inexplicable except as an effect of the earth’s orbit round the sun. Of these
real proofs Galileo remained in complete ignorance all his life. The
magnificent, yet exceedingly simple way, in which Copernicus accounted for the
seemingly intricate motions of the planets, as well as his own observations, no
doubt convinced Galileo personally of the truth of the new system, but the provocative
manner with which he defended it against its opponents, and that without solid
proofs of his own, was bound to lead to grave and disastrous collisions.
As regards Copernicus’ great work, by means of a surreptitiously
inserted preface, an impression had been created, and had spread widely, that
the book did not represent the new system of the universe as a description of
real occurrences in the stellar world but as a mere hypothesis for the purpose
of facilitating astronomical calculations. When, on the ground of his own
discoveries, Galileo began to maintain the truth of the Copernican system, many
people asked themselves how such assertions tallied with certain texts of Holy
Scripture, for instance, the words of psalm 103 : “Thou
hast founded the earth upon its own bases”, whilst of Josue it is related that
he commanded the sun to stand still. A dissertation by Lodovico delle Colombe, which only
circulated in manuscript and which, in point of fact,
speaks of Galileo in terms of high praise, also stresses these theological
objections in its concluding paragraphs. Even at the grand duke’s table, on
12th December, 1613, the matter was discussed from
this angle for two whole hours when the Benedictine Castelli, a pupil of
Galileo, took the defence of his master’s views.
Thereupon Galileo, who could not afford to incur the disfavour of the court, wrote a long letter to Castelli, copies of which were widely
circulated. Holy Scripture cannot err, he declared, but its exponents may; it
is therefore their duty to bring their explanations into harmony with the
indubitably ascertained facts of natural science. It was an abuse to begin by
dragging in Holy Scripture in questions of purely natural truths and which
touched the faith but very remotely.
Opinions like these are to be found in St. Augustine and other Fathers
of the Church; for all that theologians could hardly
feel flattered when a layman sought to teach them how to expound Holy Writ, all
the more so as the teaching of Luther had met with so much success in Germany
precisely because everybody was granted the right to interpret Holy Scripture
as seemed best to himself. There was a danger of similar conditions arising in Italy ,hence it was desirable not to allow a man of Galileo’s
reputation to indulge in theological dissertations. At Florence the Dominican,
Tommaso Caccini, made an attack on Galileo from the
pulpit when, in the course of his lectures on the book
of Josue, he came to the well-known passage about the sun standing still. The
tactlessness and rashness of Caccini was indeed
disapproved by his friends as well as by his brethren in religion, none the
less, other Florentine Dominicans began to press for a condemnation by Rome both of the book and of the teaching of Copernicus. Such a
turn of events was a serious matter for Galileo; but, notwithstanding repeated warnings to leave the theological question alone and
to confine himself to physical proofs in support of the new system of the
universe, he wrote yet another dissertation on the relation between theology
and natural science in which he repeated his former assertions. Similar views
were expressed by the Carmelite, Paolo Antonio Foscarini.
In his pamphlet he hints at the possibility that the opinion of Copernicus may
one day be demonstrated as correct. For this reason he
insists on the necessity of making a timely compromise with the Scriptural
objections.
The grand ducal court preacher, the Dominican Lorini,
had at first refrained from expressing an opinion, in the pulpit, on the new
system of the world. He now deemed it his duty to bring Galileo’s letter to
Castelli to the notice of the Congregation of the Index, without, however,
lodging a formal accusation. Thereupon the Roman Inquisition examined the
document, its judgment upon it being, on the whole, a favourable one. There was nothing in the letter to
necessitate a pronouncement on the new system and its bearing on Holy Writ.
In this way the dangers conjured up by Galileo’s incursions into the
theological field seemed happily averted; however, besides the letter to
Castelli, other pronouncements of the troublesome savant very soon claimed
attention. These were certain “Considerations upon the opinion of Copernicus”.
The pamphlet was couched in popular form and bound, from its very nature, to
challenge the theologians. Galileo there categorically affirmed that Copernicus
had not, in fact, advanced his opinion of the universe as a mere hypothesis,
and he proceeded to lay down instructions concerning the interpretation of Holy
Scripture, the authority of the Fathers, and the meaning of the Council of
Trent. He admonished the theologians not to expose Holy Scripture to the peril
of being suspected of falsehood by making it to assent to things which the
physical sciences may one day show to be inaccurate. Besides, in 1612, he had
published three letters dealing with the sunspots. In these he claims that he
first discovered their existence and, incidentally, he defends anew the motion
of the earth and the fixity of the sun.
Caccini,
who came to Rome in 1615, in order to give an account
of his Advent sermons of the previous year, drew attention to the book on the
sunspots. Galileo, he reported, had dealings with people of ill repute,
especially with Sarpi of Venice, and it was a fact that one of the pupils of
the Florentine court astronomer maintained opinions
which were positively heretical and these he supported with an appeal to the
book on sunspots. Thus it came about that the latter
work was subjected to an examination and the two propositions concerning the
fixity of the sun and the daily revolution of the earth were submitted to the
consultors of the Inquisition.
With what preconceptions the theologians of the Inquisition set to work
on the two propositions submitted to them may perhaps be gathered from
Bellarmine’s reply to Foscarini who had presented to
the learned Cardinal the book in which he advocated the new system of the
universe. It would be a good thing, Bellarmine wrote, to defend the Copernican
opinion as a mere hypothesis. It were maintained as a
proven fact it would not only provoke the philosophers and the theologians, but
an injury might be done to the faith itself, for it would appear as if one
attributed errors to Holy Scripture. Foscarini must
surely grant that his interpretation of Scripture texts in a Copernican sense
was at variance with all previous exegesis; yet the Council of Trent forbade
such interpretations of the Scripture as would run counter to the unanimous
opinion of the Fathers of the Church. If he objected that the motion of the sun
and the earth was no article of the faith and that according to the Council,
the authority of the Fathers was paramount only in matters of faith and morals,
it was nevertheless an article of faith that Holy Scripture cannot assert what is
false. If, however, a real proof of the new system were forthcoming, it would be necessary to proceed very cautiously in the
interpretation of Holy Writ, and to suggest this explanation, for choice,
namely that we have failed to grasp its meaning. To him it seemed more than
doubtful that the opinion of Copernicus was the only correct one and whilst
there was so much uncertainty it was not right to give up the traditional
interpretation of the Fathers.
Some time before Cardinal Conti had written to Galileo that it was quite possible that
when the Bible speaks of the motion of the sun and of the vault of heaven, it
was merely using the ordinary language of the people; none the less such an
interpretation could not be admitted unless necessity demanded it. Since
Galileo’s letter to Castelli met with such lenient treatment at the hands of
the Inquisition, it was easy to see that similar ideas were not foreign to its
members. Everything goes to show that the theologians of the Inquisition were
determined to abide by the interpretation of the disputed Scripture texts which
had been handed down from the Fathers, until a decisive proof would be brought
forward to demonstrate that the new system was the only correct one.
For a proof of this kind the world had to wait for Newton and Bradley.
On the other hand it is possible that the manifestly
inadequate arguments by which Galileo endeavoured to
support his theories may have convinced the theologians that there was no real
proof and that none was to be expected at any future time.
Whilst the discussions were pending Galileo behaved with exceeding
indiscretion. He over-estimated the reputation he had won for himself and, in the words of the Tuscan envoy, he seemed to
have got the notion into his head that he must needs break the obstinacy of the
Friars and wage a war in which he could only be the loser. The envoy did all he
could to bring the matter to a happy issue but, with his blustering ways, he
writes, Galileo spoilt everything. The very Cardinals of the Holy Office told
Galileo that he was free to hold any opinions he liked, only let him refrain
from trying to force them on others. It is certain that even in Rome there were
those who admired the skill with which Galileo defended his views. He could
marshal a whole row of plausible proofs in support of any opinion; if his
hearers agreed he would knock down the whole structure with another set of
arguments, thereby exposing to ridicule those who had previously fallen in with
his views. But the theologians of the Inquisition were not to be impressed by
such tricks. Thus, when in a private conversation, Galileo had lightly thrown
off the suggestion that the motion of the earth could be proved by the
phenomenon of the tides, Cardinal Orsini, who was very well disposed towards
him, requested him to set down his statement on paper, with the obvious
intention of thereby influencing the discussions of the Inquisition. Galileo’s
memorandum has been preserved; it is, however, quite unworthy of such a mind as
his and altogether inconclusive. To all this must be added the fact that
Galileo shocked people by his extravagance. The Tuscan envoy complained of the
heavy expenses which his sovereign had ordered him to meet; he begged that
Galileo be recalled to Florence as soon as possible, otherwise things might
take a bad turn.
The bad turn did come. At a sitting of February 24th, 1616, the
consultors of the Inquisition began by expounding their opinion in the matter.
Two propositions had been submitted to their consideration : the first of these, namely that the sun was immovable, they qualified as absurd
and erroneous from the point of view of philosophy, and as formally heretical,
inasmuch as it directly contradicted the literal meaning of many texts of Holy
Writ and the interpretation given of them by the Fathers and the theologians.
As regards the second proposition, namely that which ascribes to the earth a
twofold motion, one round its own axis and another round the sun, their
unanimous verdict was that, on philosophical grounds it was to be rejected like
the first, and judged from the theological standpoint, the least they could say
was that it erred in the faith.
However, for the moment this was only the verdict of the consultors of
the Inquisition. On the following day a meeting took place, under the
presidency of the Pope, of the Cardinals of the Inquisition whose province it
was to give a decisive judgment. We do not know whether they shared the views
of the consultors in every detail. At any rate on this Occasion the Inquisition
did not issue a dogmatic decree concerning the system of the universe. Though
for the time being they wanted to be lenient towards the person of Galileo,
Cardinal Bellarmine was nevertheless commissioned to induce him to give up the
Copernican theory. To this end the Cardinal invited Galileo to his house where
he at first tried to apply gentle persuasion. This proved unsuccessful.
Thereupon Seghizzi of Lodi, a commissary of the
Inquisition who was present at the interview, communicated to him, in presence
of the Cardinal and several other witnesses, a formal injunction not to hold,
teach or defend in future, in any way whatsoever, the doctrine of the fixity of
the sun and the motion of the earth; if he were to act otherwise, the Holy
Office would proceed against him.
ACTION OF THE INQUISITION
Other decisions only dealt with the prohibition of certain books, and
this the Inquisition left to the Congregation of the Index. The decree of the
Index of March 5th, 1616, states that the Congregation had received information
concerning the Pythagorean doctrine, which is erroneous and wholly at variance
with Holy Writ, of the motion of the earth and the fixity of the sun: Lest a doctrine of this kind should spread
further, to the injury of Catholic truth, three books were now prohibited; viz.
the book of Copernicus and the commentary on Job by Stunica,
but only temporarily, that is, until they should have undergone certain
emendations. On the other hand the book of Foscarini was unconditionally prohibited. Moreover the prohibition effected all such books as were
written in defence of the Copernican system.
Subsequent editions of the Index of forbidden books, from 1624 to 1757, contain
a general prohibition of all books of this kind. None of Galileo’s writings
were expressly prohibited, neither his dissertation on the sunspots, nor his
letter to Castelli.
As late as 1605, Kepler expressed his admiration for the wisdom of the
Roman Church which, he wrote, condemned the superstition of astrology but
allowed a free discussion of the view of Copernicus. As a matter of fact theological misgivings in regard to the new system of
the universe were first publicly expressed in the Protestant camp. Luther began
it in his Table Talk; in 1541, Osiander followed him
in his preface to the first printed edition of Copernicu’
book; in 1549, Melanchton took the field with the
Scripture texts which could not be harmonized with the new teaching, and Tycho
Brahe followed them in 1578. On the Catholic side the motion of the earth round
its axis had been defended in Paris as early as the middle of the fourteenth
century.
In that century, Nicholas Oresme pointed out that in the texts which
seemed to bar the way to the new theory, Holy Scripture spoke as ordinary
people do. Nicholas of Cusa also allows the earth to
revolve round its own axis and the Protonotary Apostolic, Calcagnini,
taught even before Copernicus that the sun stood still whereas the earth moved.
Christopher Clavius was the first Catholic scholar
who, in 1581, urged against Copernicus certain texts of Holy Scripture, though
he did so with moderation. The future Cardinal Pazmany,
when still a lecturer at Graz, taught that no conclusion unfavourable to Copernicus could be deduced from the well
known texts of Holy Scripture. It was the decree of 1616 that
changed the face of things. To quote Kepler once more, owing to the ill-advised
importunity of some persons, who propounded the teachings of astronomy in the
wrong places and in the wrong way, things tame to such a pass that the reading
of Copernicus’ books, which for eighty years had been freely allowed to anyone,
was now forbidden until they should have been revised. The blame for this must
be laid at Galileo’s door. His persistence forced the Roman Congregations to
issue a decision in a matter which was not as yet ripe
for a definition, and his indiscreet and excessive ardour is responsible, in the first instance, for the regrettable consequences.
For the time being these consequences did not affect him personally to
any great extent. His prestige, even in ecclesiastical circles, suffered no
eclipse and nothing had happened to him as far as the great public was
concerned. Paul V personally comforted the disappointed savant. For the space
of nearly an hour the two men walked up and down together and all the time the
Pope kept assuring the famous scientist that both he himself and the
Congregation thought so highly of him that they would not readily lend an ear
to calumny. Whilst he himself was alive, the Pope declared, Galileo could rest
assured on that score. However, when unfavourable reports begun to be bruited about, Cardinal Bellarmine gave Galileo an
attestation to the effect that he had not been compelled to recant or to
undergo any kind of penance whatever. He was not forbidden to continue his researches, even in the sphere of astronomy. If an end was
put to his irruptions into the theological arena, the measure was in reality a blessing for Galileo.
It is a matter for deep regret that the book of Copernicus should have
been the object of a prohibition. There was, however, no question of destroying
the work. The report of the Congregation of the Index on the revision of the
book opens with the statement that it was absolutely
necessary to guard and preserve the work for the benefit of the whole
Christian commonwealth, all the more so as in the correction of the Calendar under
Gregory XIII, use had been made of the so-called Pruthenic Tables, the reckoning of which was based on the Copernican system. The
corrections to which the work of the astronomer of Thorn was to be subjected
did not effect the
scientific contents of the book; only those passages were to be struck out, or
toned down, in which the new system was put forward as an established fact.
Hence even persons who had no authorization to read forbidden books need only
take pen and ink and alter these particular passages,
when Copernicus’ work would be no longer a prohibited book for them. Small
importance attaches, therefore, to the fact that only since 1835, when a new
edition of the Index was published, the name of Copernicus no longer figures in
that list, since his system had long ago prevailed even in Catholic schools.
Far more momentous than the measures thus taken against Galileo and the
work of Copernicus was the general prohibition of all writings in support of
the new system of the universe. This prohibition remained in the volume of the
Index until 1758. It may be that in Catholic countries it damped ardour for the study of astronomy; however, in France the
Gallicans, on the plea of the alleged liberties of the French Church, refused
to consider the decrees of the Index and the Inquisition as binding, and if no
second Galileo, or a Newton, or a Bradley arose in Italy, the blame cannot
fairly be ascribed to the decree against Copernicus.
It must be added that even devout Catholics considered these decrees of
the Index and the Inquisition as ordinances that must be obeyed, but not as
infallible papal decrees. In any case it was always open to astronomers to look
for proofs in support of the Copernican system. The decree of the Inquisition
against Copernicus at once led the Accademia dei Lincei to lay down fresh disciplinary measures. One of its
members, the mathematician Luca Valerio, whom Galileo had styled the Archimedes
of his time, had publicly asserted that Galileo taught the motion of the earth
precisely because he belonged to the Accademia dei Lincei and that he maintained it not as a hypothesis, but
as a fact. In consequence of the sentence against Copernicus the academy was
afraid of becoming involved in Galileo’s fate. Accordingly on March 24th, Luca
Valerio was formally reprimanded and deprived of his seat and vote. Nevertheless his name was not struck off the register of the
Academy, “though he had merited this punishment and even a severer one”.
The Congregation of the Index was the only one of all the congregations
to preserve its individual importance. During the pontificate of Paul V it had to deal, not with Galileo alone, but also with two
other Italian savants, though in the latter instance its proceedings were amply
justified. Caesar Cremonini, born at Cento, in 1550,
is known as the last exponent of averroistic Aristotelianism.
He taught philosophy first at Ferrara and after 1591, at Padua. As early as
1611, the Roman Inquisition had to busy itself with his exposition of
Aristotle. The opinions which he expressed in a book published at Venice in
1613, under the title of De Coelo, brought Cremonini in conflict with the local Inquisition of Padua,
and eventually with the Roman Inquisition. When, in 1614, that tribunal started
proceedings against Cremonini, the Venetian envoy in
Rome lodged a protest. As for Cremonini himself, he
gave an undertaking to take into account, in a new
book, the criticisms passed on the work De Coelo by the authorities in Rome. Thus the matter was
apparently settled. However, when the new book came out in 1616, it was seen
that not only had Cremonini not kept his promise, but
that he had formulated fresh and equally dangerous theses. Discussions led to
no result, hence on January 18th, 1622, the Congregation of the Index
prohibited the book De Coelo until such time
as the author had revised it. The decree added that if this was not done within
a year, the book was to be considered as forbidden without further formality.
Though Cremonini may have thought that his teaching
was not at variance with that of the Church, there can be no doubt that it
denied some of the fundamental dogmas of the Catholic faith.
Incomparably greater anxiety than that caused to the Holy See by the
philosopher of Padua, was occasioned by Marcantonio de Dominis,
archbishop of Spalato. Pride and vanity were the curse of the life of this
gifted and learned man. Even the archiepiscopal see of Spalato, to which was
joined the dignity of primate of Dalmatia, failed to satisfy the unquiet man.
Men who are the slaves of vanity and who lack strength of character, are only
too prone to take a line of conduct totally at variance with the principles
they may have previously held, if they see a chance that in so doing they may realize the fondest desire of their hearts,
namely to acquire wo rid-wide fame. This was all the more easily verified in de Dominis as he was devoid of
strong and definite religious convictions. In 1612, the Venetian envoy, Gessi, in a personal interview, sought to restrain him from
publishing a treatise against papal authority. His efforts were in vain. In
1614 de Dominis became involved in a
controversy with the Bishop of Trau which ended in
his passing a sentence of suspension on the latter. De Dominis had hoped for the support of the Holy See in this quarrel. Rome, however,
refused to take his side. In his disappointment the passionate man announced
his intention to resign his archbishopric. On Gessi’s advice, the Holy See agreed, with the proviso that de Dominis should come to Rome to tender his resignation in person. The archbishop’s
refusal to comply with this demand was obviously inspired by fear of the
Inquisition. Whilst the affair was still pending he
decided on an open rupture with the Church. Under date of September
20th he caused to be printed at Venice a violent manifesto in which he
enumerated the grounds for his apostasy. He then made his escape into the
Grisons. At Chur he told two Venetian agents that he intended to go to England,
for after the publication of his manifesto he had cause to fear for his
personal safety. For all that he meant to remain a practising Catholic. How de Dominis understood this was soon to
be seen. When he reached London he met with a hearty
reception from James I. He made a public profession of anglicanism at St. Paul’s, whereupon the king bestowed several fat prebends on him. As is
the usual practice of apostates, the wretched man now made the most virulent
attacks upon the Church, the mother he had forsaken. In 1617 he published, in
London, the first part of a book on the Constitution of the Church, in which he
denies the Pope’s primacy. An anonymous publication of de Dominis,
which appeared simultaneously with this book, testifies to a similar mentality.
These writings were followed, in 1619, by the publication of Sarpi’s History of the Council of Trent, together with
a dedication to James I, in which the most outrageous charges are made against
the Catholic Church. All these writings fell under the ban of the Index, and
the papal nuncios were instructed to prevent their diffusion.
Only a very small number of executions for heresy occurred under Paul V
and in almost every instance the people concerned were either obstinate
recidivists or persons guilty of sacrilege, especially sacrilege against the
most holy Sacrament of the altar. As regards the death sentence, it should be
borne in mind that the secular judges often inflicted the extreme penalty for
far less grievous offences. In the sixteenth century, in Lombardy, it was no
rare occurrence for a man to suffer death simply for taking a piece of bread
with violence or for kissing a female in public. Anyone who dared to speak
against the government ran the risk of death. Persons who abjured their errors
before the Inquisition escaped with a more or less lengthy term of imprisonment, or the galleys. The majority of the cases dealt with by the Inquisition were crimes against morality,
profanations of graves, and similar offences. There is no known instance of a
prosecution for witchcraft in Rome during the reign of Paul V, but at Milan this
form of madness had assumed alarming proportions. It is worth noting that the
Milanese Inquisitors contented themselves with punishing with banishment or
imprisonment persons accused of witchcraft and refused to hand them over to the
secular arm, with a view to their execution. In consequence of this conduct the
Governor of Lombardy, Velasco, lodged a complaint with the Roman authorities,
but Paul V decided against the application of the capital sentence. The
Governor’s complaint caused the Pope to send to the Inquisitors of the whole of
Italy instructions “inspired by a sense of justice and understanding”. These
instructions are proof of an earnest resolve to do all that was possible to
prevent the injustices and cruelties committed by the judges, and to eliminate
precisely the more grievous abuses that had crept in where there was question
of a prosecution for witchcraft.
Recent investigation of the methods of the Italian Inquisition has shown
that, generally speaking, the current accusations of
partiality and cruelty are unfounded. As a matter of fact the inquisitorial tribunals of the various Italian States which, in 1613 and
1614, were put under obligation of giving an annual account of their
activities, had to deal less and less frequently with real heretics,
particularly since the failure of the attempt to establish Calvinism in Venice.
Thus, by degrees, the Inquisition came to assume the form of a kind of police
force, whose object it was to deal with books contrary to the Catholic faith
and with pamphlets libelling the Church. In this
field also its proceedings were frequently characterized by extreme mildness.
Paul V upheld in every way the rights of the Inquisition. When the republic of
Lucca attempted to establish an Inquisition of its own, he condemned the
action, in 1606, as an intolerable usurpation and declared null and void the
ordinances emanated from Lucca in respect to forbidden books and the repression
of heresy. In spite of opposition on the part of
Florence, he insisted, in 1608, on the arrest of a man as distinguished as was Alidosi, even though he had been selected for the post of
envoy to the emperor, because he was under accusation of holding heretical
opinions. In the end an agreement was come to according to the terms of which
the affair was to be settled by a Roman commissary and a Florentine Inquisitor.
Elsewhere also similar conflicts were occasioned when inquisitorial causes were
called to Rome.
Ecclesiastical affairs of another kind led to far more serious conflicts
between the spiritual and the secular power. Like Clement VIII, Paul V showed
himself a rigid guardian of the rights of the Church. In this matter his
knowledge of the law stood him in good stead; it enabled him, among other
things, to take into account the just complaints of
the secular power, especially in regard to the right of sanctuary of churches
and monasteries, without in any way tampering with principles. It was, however,
imperative that the Pope should resist the universal and ever
growing tendency of the State to encroach on the sphere of the Church.
Paul V became engaged on numerous ecclesiastico-political
conflicts with Charles Emmanuel I, duke of Savoy, who showed as little regard
for the rights of the Church, “as if” , according to
the mot of the Venetian envoy, Vincenzo Gussoni, in
1613, “he were lord of the whole world!”. The growth of Spanish caesaro-papalism occasioned the Pope even graver anxiety.
True, Madrid complacently fancied that it could obtain from Rome anything it
really wished for by just keeping up the good relations that had obtained
between Spain and the Pope when the latter was only a Cardinal and by acting on
the Pope’s nephews and the Cardinals by means of pensions. Outwardly, the
Spaniards made a great show of regard for the Pope. Again and again he was assured of their determination to defend both
him and the interests of the Church. For all that, they would not renounce any
one of their caesaro-papistic pretensions. This
became perfectly clear in the decrees of Philip III of May 3rd, 1605, and
December 10th, 1607, by which the nuncio of Madrid was excluded from the
discussions in connection with American affairs. If, in this instance, Paul V
yielded to the inevitable, he did not fail to offer resistance on other points.
In November, 1605, he expressed his profound
displeasure at the outrageous violation of Canon Law practised in Spain by means of the so-called Recurso de fuerza (Appel comme d’abus). In June of the same year the Pope had found
himself compelled to excommunicate a Spanish official at Naples.
In the kingdom of Naples and Sicily, where a discontented population
must be kept under at all costs, Spanish caesaro-papalism
showed itself at its worst. It culminated in the pretensions contained in the
privileges of the so-called Monarchia Sicula which Paul V also had refused to recognize. It
was to be feared that a similar situation would arise in Naples itself inasmuch
as the nobility, the freemen and the clergy supported the government’s attempt
to curtail the rights of the Holy See; indeed, things came to such a pass that
the one remaining privilege of the Pope was to be presented with a white
palfrey on St. Peter’s day. All this made the position
of the nuncios at Naples an exceedingly thorny one. They had to complain of
endless interference with ecclesiastical jurisdiction on the part of the
authorities. Paul V left nothing undone in the hope of bringing about an
improvement. Towards Philip III he showed himself
liberal with all manner of favours. It was all in
vain. Politico-ecclesiastical conditions in Naples grew worse rather than
better. In Spain itself the customary policy in regard to the Church was tenaciously pursued. An edict of Philip III, of October 3rd,
1610, and published on December 17th in Sicily, and in February, 1611, in Portugal and at Naples, was nothing less than a challenge to the Pope.
The decree forbade the sale of the eleventh volume of the Annals of Cardinal
Baronius, which contains an examination of the Monarchia Sicula, under penalty of a fine of 500 florins; in
case of a second offence, nobles were threatened with five years’ banishment
and the rest with the galleys. Paul V vainly sought, through Philip III’s
confessor, the nuncio in Madrid and Cardinal Sandoval of Toledo, to procure the
repeal of the decree. The post of nuncio to Spain was at that time held by Decio Carafa, archbishop of Damascus, who in May, 1607, had succeeded Giangarzia Millini when the latter was raised to the
cardinalate. When Antonio Caetani, archbishop of
Capua, was sent to Madrid as nuncio, in 1611, he also took up the affair but
with similar ill-success.
In Milan conflicts between Church and State arose as early as 1605. In
1615 and 1617, certain agreements were come to between the spiritual and the
secular power which eased the situation at least for a time.
PORTUGAL UNDER AN INTERDICT.
In 1607, Paul V praised the archbishop of Compostella for his zeal in the defence of the Church’s rights.
In this respect conditions were particularly bad in the kingdom of Portugal,
which was at that time subject to Spain. There the violation of the Church’s
immunity by the secular authorities was the order of the day. The Pope was
grievously hurt by an edict of August, 1610, which
made the acquisition of monastic or ecclesiastical property dependent on the
assent of the royal authorities. The decree stipulated, moreover, that persons
who had acquired such property were to alienate it once more within a year and
a month, under pain of confiscation. The nuncio at Madrid made energetic
remonstrances and he ended by securing at least a temporary suspension of the
ordinance. Ottavio Accoramboni, bishop of Fossombrone, who went to Portugal in 1614, in the capacity
of a Collector, was instructed to press for a complete repeal of the decree,
and to oppose all further attempts on the part of the authorities to meddle
with the affairs of the Church. In the summer of 1614, the archbishop of Lisbon
lodged a strong complaint with Philip III against the excesses committed by his
officials in Portugal, who cast priests into prison as if they were competent
to judge the clergy. The position of Accoramboni became very difficult. On November 8th, Paul V. saw himself compelled to point
out to the king of Spain the perils that must ensue from the pretensions of his
officials in Portugal. In the following year, Accoramboni found himself constrained to lay Lisbon under an interdict in punishment of
certain acts of open violation of ecclesiastical immunity. It was due to Philip
III’s intervention that the dispute, in which Paul V had taken Accoramboni’s part, was settled the year after. In this
instance, as in many others, Philip III, for whose personal piety the Pope felt
real esteem, showed far better dispositions than his servants. The Pope, in
consequence, repeatedly appealed directly to the king, as, for instance, in the
spring of 1617, on the occasion of an act of violence
by the Spanish governor of Sardinia against the Inquisition of that island.
A typical instance of the mentality of the Spanish bureaucracy may be seen
in the instruction given to Francisco de Castro, who was expected to raise the
somewhat lowered prestige of Spain, on his appointment, in the summer of 1609,
to the Rome embassy, in succession to the Marquis de Aytona who is best known through the great equestrian painting of him by Van Dyck.
To the Italians of today, the document declares, the words of Tiberius
are applicable : they are born to be slaves! As for
his line of conduct in regard to the papal government,
de Castro is enjoined to see to it that the Pope, as an ecclesiastic, does not
meddle with temporal matters and that, as a temporal prince, he does not
disturb the tranquillity of the Church! Here we see
plainly revealed Spain’s ambition to get the whole of Italy into her power. Is
it to be wondered at if a member of the College of Cardinals raised the
question whether the moment had not come to drive the Spaniards out of Italy?
Paul V would not go so far; however, he looked with favour on Henry IV as the
only one who knew how to stand up to the Spaniards, and whenever the Spanish
envoy represented some of his own wishes as the demands of the whole Catholic
world, the Pope would carefully examine whether they were justified and if he
found that they were not, he was firm in his refusal.
In view of the difficult conditions of the period, Paul V was even more
strongly convinced than his predecessors of the absolute necessity of an
energetic and uniform government of the Church. He gave effect to this
conviction by greatly enlarging the powers of his nuncios. The Pope was
determined to keep the reins of government in his own hands. He suffered
neither his nephew Scipio Borghese, nor any of the Cardinals, unduly to
influence either his internal or his external policy. That this absolutism was
justified is granted even by the Venetian envoys who were by no means favourably disposed towards the Pope. The chief reason of
this policy, they explain, is the dependence of the Cardinals on the princes by
whose intervention they had been created and from whom they accepted pensions.
Moreover, those among the Cardinals who aspired after the tiara, allowed this
ambition to hamper their conduct. Even on this ground alone Paul V would have
nothing to do with an electoral capitulation.
Not only in respect to the duty of residence, but in other matters also,
the Pope showed himself strict with the Cardinals. At the very beginning of his pontificate he earnestly reminded them that no member
of the Sacred College could leave the Pontifical States without his permission.
In 1609 he greatly curtailed the indults granted to the Cardinals in respect to
the collation of benefices.
In these circumstances it is not surprising that Paul V acted with
complete independence in the appointment of Cardinals. Sigismund III, King of
Poland, was one of those who experienced how little the Pope allowed himself to
be influenced by the princes when there was question of filling the ranks of
the Sacred College. The king had warmly pleaded for the bestowal of the purple
on the former nuncio, Rangoni. Paul V held Sigismund
in high regard because of his Catholic sentiments, and readily complied with
his wishes but, in this instance, he refused even though the request was made
repeatedly and with great earnestness. The grounds for the Pope’s action are
laid down in the instructions to the nuncio Diotallevi.
The cardinalate, so we read, is no mere honorific title; on the contrary, on
his admission into the Sacred College, the person so chosen becomes a
confidential adviser of the Pope. In the choice of such men the Head of the
Church must have complete freedom.
CREATION OF EIGHT CARDINALS.
In the first year of Paul V’s reign the Sacred College lost five of its
members. On September 11th, 1606, the Pope made his first large-scale creation
of Cardinals. It had been wholly unexpected. The ambassadors had had no
previous intelligence of the event. Of the eight new Cardinals, five were
natives of Rome, viz. Lodovico Torres, Giangarzia Millini, Bonifazio Caetani, Marcello Lante and Orazio
Maffei.
Lodovico Torres had rendered distinguished service at the time of the
revision of the new Pontificale and the new
Martyrology. In 1588 he had been made archbishop of Monreale:
there he fulfilled his duties admirably. He visited his diocese in person year
by year; he founded a seminary to which he bequeathed his rich library,
embellished the magnificent Cathedral and made himself
the father of the poor. The Cardinal, who had been a friend of Tasso, and to
whom Baronius dedicated the eleventh volume of his Annals, was appointed
librarian of the Roman Church in 1607.
Bonifazio Caetani had attracted attention to
himself by the splendid way in which he discharged the functions of legate in
the Romagna. Marcello Lante, whose whole time was
given to the pursuit of ecclesiastical interests, was a man of great merit. He
reformed his diocese of Todi and subsequently made a
name for himself in Rome by restoring numerous churches, hospitals and monasteries. Out of humility and imitating in this St. Charles Borromeo, he
would not have the memory of his achievements perpetuated by means of any of
the inscriptions which were the fashion of the time. His liberality was
proverbial.
Orazio Maffei, a scion of
the famous Roman family of that name, did not come up to the Pope’s
expectations. It is not possible for us to decide whether or
not the accusations against his conduct are founded in fact. What is certain
is that though an apartment was assigned to him in the Pope’s palace, as was
done for Torres and Lante, he eventually incurred the
displeasure of Paul V. It was generally believed that he died of grief in 1609.
The fifth among the Romans who received the plurple in 1606, Giangarzia Millini,
was an eminent and distinguished man in many respects. He had grown to maturity
under the patronage of Cardinal Castagna who was to
occupy Peter’s chair under the name of Urban VII. His career might have been
even more rapid had not the pontificate of his patron been cut short. However,
Urban’s successor knew how to appreciate so gifted a man. Gregory XIV made him
an auditor of the Rota, and Millini soon became the
most important member of that tribunal. He accompanied Clement VIII on his
journey to Ferrara, and when the Pope’s nephew, Pietro Aldobrandini, went to
Florence to bless the marriage of Henry IV, Millini was in his cortège. He likewise accompanied Cardinal Caetani on his legation to Poland. It would seem that Clement VIII had thought of bestowing the purple on him, but he only received it from Paul
V, at the time of his nunciature in Spain. He was only thirty-four years of age
at the time. His titular church was that of Santi Quattro Coronati.
The relics of these Saints were found in the course of the restoration of the church initiated by the Cardinal. Paul V kept Millini in Spain for two more years, after which he
dispatched him on an important mission to Germany. On his return to Rome he was appointed Vicar of the Pope and a member of the
Inquisition as well as of the Congregations of Rites, of Bishops, and of the
Council. He was also the protector of numerous religious Orders. In these
offices the Cardinal had ever at heart the cause of the reform. In this respect
he had made a start with himself when, in 1611, he spontaneously resigned his
diocese of Imola, owing to the impossibility for him to observe canonical
residence. The high esteem in which Millini stood
with Paul V made him many enemies; this did not disconcert him; whenever
requested to do so by the Pope he gave such advice as in his conscience he
deemed best. By his extraordinary industry, his sincere piety, the purity of
his life and his liberality towards the poor and the sick, Millini was an ornament of the Sacred College for the space of thirty-eight years. He
died in 1644. His resting place is in the second chapel of the left transept of
Santa Maria del Popolo, a church he had richly
decorated. An excellent and distinctive bust of him by Algardi adorns his tomb. Of the three non-Roman Cardinals created in 1606, the sixty-nine year old Bartolomeo Ferratino was given the purple as a reward for loyal service rendered to nine Popes. He
was a dignified personage who had spent his strength in self-sacrificing toil.
He died two months after his nomination. His name was kept alive in Rome by the
Strada Ferratina, which owed its name to the Cardinal’s
beautiful palazzo.
Orazio Spinola, a native of Genoa, had likewise held the most
diverse posts. As Legate of Ferrara he completed the
construction of the citadel. Later on he withdrew to
his diocese of Genoa where, as previously at Ferrara, his great severity
inspired fear. Like Torres and Caetani, Spinola was believed to be a supporter of Spain. His
importance is sufficiently shown by the fact that as soon as he had been
created a Cardinal he, as well as Millini,
was considered papabile.
The most gifted of all those raised to the purple in 1606 was the French
nuncio, Maffeo Barberini, who was destined to ascend
the papal throne under the name of Urban VIII.
As early as December, 1606, it was rumoured in Rome that a fresh creation of Cardinals was at
hand. In the spring of the following year the Spanish envoy drew attention to
the gap caused by the death of Avila and, acting under Philip III’s
instructions, he urged once more that the purple should be bestowed on the king’s
confessor, Jeronimo Xavier, General of the Dominicans.
DEATH OF BARONIUS
Of all the losses suffered by the Sacred College in 1607, the heaviest
was assuredly the death of Baronius, which occurred on June 30th. Through his
stern application to study and his hard and mortified mode of life, the great
historian had contracted a disease of the stomach of which the first symptoms
showed themselves in an alarming fashion at the beginning of 1606. Nevertheless he was still able to see through the press the
twelfth volume of his Annals, which he dedicated to Paul V. At the close of the
same year he had a copy presented to all the Cardinals
of the Curia. The volume contained an attack on the authenticity of the
Constantinian donation. At that time many canonists and even historians such as
Abraham Bovius still maintained the authenticity of
that document. Paul V shared the opinion and had discussed the matter with
Bellarmine. The learned Jesuit made no secret of his being on the side of
Baronius. When the Pope had personally read the relevant passages in the
Annals, he expressed no displeasure. On April 9th, 1607, Bellarmine informed
his friend of the fact and advised him to make no change. By that time Baronius
was already grievously stricken. Some people connected his illness with the
renewed opposition of the Spaniards to his treatment of the Monarchia Sicula; others with his having dared to contest Constantine's
donation in the Annals. The latter surmise was surely false for Bellarmine’s
letter could not fail to set the Cardinal’s mind completely at rest. Moreover,
at that time, Baronius only thought of preparing himself for death, for he
realized full well the seriousness of his condition. His physician suggested a
visit to Frascati. Though he felt that a change of air could no longer do him
any good, Baronius was ready to submit. He made only one request, viz. that his
confessor should accompany him. At Frascati, where he took up residence once
more in his modest little house near the Villa Piccolomini,
his condition grew so much worse that on June 17th it was rumoured in Rome that he was dead. The rumour proved
premature, but the condition of the aged scholar was hopeless. He bore with
utmost patience the terrible pain which the disease caused him; the serenity of
his soul was undimmed; with great joy he looked forward to the dissolution
which would unite him with Christ. For him, as for St. Francis, “Brother Death”
was a dear friend with whom he had been oil familiar terms, every day, for many
years. Only one wish did he still cherish: he longed to die among his beloved Oratorians. In this spirit he had long ago applied to
himself the words of Job : “I would fain die in my
little nest”, (Job. xxix, 18) and he had begged the Oratorians to give him a room in their house in which he had spent the happiest days of
his life. On June 19th, therefore, Baronius had himself taken back to Rome. In
those moments it was not the objections to his Annals that hurt him, but rather
a feeling that he was unworthy of the purple and the regret that it had not
been granted to him to end his days as a simple priest. Repeatedly fortified
with the Holy Viaticum he died on the evening of June 30th, 1607, amid the
prayers of his Oratorians. His wish had been to be
buried very simply, like a poor man, in his titular church of SS. Nereus and Achilleus. However, the Oratorians could not bear the thought of parting with his mortal remains, so they buried
him in their church, in their common burial place to the left of the high
altar. A year later, when Cardinal Tarugi died, the
two friends were given a joint resting place to the right of the high altar.
Grief in Rome was universal, for the piety and goodness of the Cardinal
had won him all hearts. Not a few among the twenty-one Cardinals who took part
in the obsequies were unable to restrain their tears. Of opposition to the
Annals there was no longer any question. The twelfth volume was put on the
market, and before long even the defenders of the authenticity of the
Constantinian donation held their peace. It is a remarkable thing that even the
representative of Venice, Francesco Contarini, could not hide his admiration
for the dead Cardinal: he extolled him as “the eye of the Church”. Almost the
whole of the manuscript material left by the father of modern Church history,
went into the library of the Oratorians, near S.
Maria in Vallicella. Here one may still admire today
the gigantic work which stands alone in the story of ecclesiastical
historiography. The same library also houses his sermon plans, his youthful
correspondence with his parents and relations, as well as his extensive
correspondence with the most important men of his age, with Saints such as Giovenale Ancina, Antonio Maria Tarugi, Giovan Battista Vitelli;
with scholars like Guglielmo Sirleto, Justus Lipsius,
Stanislaus Rescius, Isaac Casaubonus,
Guglielmo Lindanus, Antonio Possevino,
Matthaeus Rader, Dioysius Petavius and with Cardinals Bellarmine and Federigo Borromeo.
Besides many other Cardinals, princes such as Henry IV of France, the emperor
Rudolph II, Sigismund III of Poland and Charles
Emmanuel of Savoy, likewise figure in this correspondence in which the genius that
wrote the Annals stands out in a most attractive light, not only as a scholar
but as a man and an ascetic.
The library also preserves Baronius handy edition of Eusebius’ History
of the Church, as well as his Bible, which contains proofs of the Cardinal’s
devotion to the Mother of God. For a number of years
one could see in a small study attached to the library, and over the desk at
which Odorico Rainaldi wrote his continuation of the Annals, a portrait of Baronius with the beautiful distich :
Learning and godliness, this twofold flame,
Casts mingled splendour round Baronius’ name.
Two eminent members of the Sacred College were on terms of closest
friendship both with Baronius and with Paul V. They were Federigo Borromeo and Bellarmine. Federigo was archbishop of
Milan since 1595, and in the discharge of the duties of his office he successfully
modelled himself on his famous predecessor and kinsman, Charles Borromeo, in
whose honour he also erected the well-known colossal
statue near Arona. Besides a provincial council, Federigo held fourteen diocesan synods. He seemed
insensible to fatigue, spending himself on behalf of his vast diocese,
especially in the pulpit, the administration of the sacraments, education, and
in works of charity. None the less the government of his diocese and the
preservation of ecclesiastical authority and immunity involved him in many
conflicts with the caesaro-papalism of the Spanish
authorities. If these complications led him at times too far, right was, in
most instances, on his side and his task it was to defend it against
politicians who were always suspicious and who had become familiarized with
tyrannical power in their native land. One wonders how a man whose time was so
fully taken up by his pastoral duties, could still find leisure for an
extensive literary activity embracing biblical studies, dogmatic and moral
theology, Canon law, and Church history. The Ambrosian Library, which he
founded and inaugurated in 1609, is an eloquent witness to his love of
knowledge. To the library he added a printing press as well as a college of
doctors, a picture gallery, and an academy of the fine arts.
By his piety and learning the great controversialist, Bellarmine, was a
rival of Borromeo and Baronius. After the two conclaves of the year 1605, in
which the tiara had come within his reach, Paul V. kept him in Rome where, to
the day of his death (September 17th, 1621) he exercised considerable influence
in the cardinalitial Congregations.
Besides the polemical writings, especially those against Sarpi and James
I, which he composed by order of the Pope, the most important literary fruit of
his mature years is a catechism for the young. This book has had an almost
infinite number of editions; it has been translated into a dozen different
languages, has been recommended by the Popes, and is in use to this day.
In what esteem Bellarmine was held by the common people was shown at his
funeral, which became a triumph. The crowds that surged round his bier knew
nothing of his learned writings. But they knew his charity to the poor, and revered him as a real Saint. “I have known, at
various times”, says Cardinal Valier, “men of high standing as regards
learning, goodness, and an exemplary conduct, nay, even men who died with a
reputation for holiness, but in all of them together I have not found so many
virtues, and those in so high a degree, as in this great soldier of Christ. The
humility, kindness, piety, purity, meekness, liberality, contempt of the world,
sincerity, obedience to superiors, which had distinguished him as a simple
religious, he preserved as a Cardinal, to the end of his life”. The judgment
passed on him by all Rome, from the Cardinals down to the beggars, was ratified
by the highest authority when it ranked him among the Blessed.
The prudent circumspection with which Paul V was wont to proceed in all
things caused the creation of new Cardinals, which had been expected for some
time, to be delayed until December 10th, 1607. This nomination was intended to
give satisfaction to the wishes of the princes. Out of regard for the emperor,
the aged archbishop of Gran, Francis Forgacs, primate and grand chancellor of Hungary, was raised to the purple. He was an excellent
man and had done good service to the Church. Francois de Rochefoucauld, bishop
of Clermont, had likewise shown great zeal for the Catholic reform, but that
humble prelate whose learning equalled his piety,
regretted the efforts made on his behalf by Henry IV. On December 10th, Philip
III and his minister, the Duke of Lerma, had at last the satisfaction of seeing
the fulfilment of their wishes in regard to Jeronimo
Xavier. In addition to these, two Italian princes were likewise admitted into
the Senate of the Church: they were Ferdinand Gonzaga, the barely
twenty-year-old brother of the reigning Duke of Mantua, and Maurice of Savoy,
fourth son of Duke Charles Emmanuel. This prince was only fourteen years old at
the time; later on he brilliantly acted the part of a Maecenas towards writers and artists.
In the course of the year 1608, in which five Cardinals died, a new promotion was repeatedly
mooted, even in the Pope’s entourage. Though the ambassadors were importunate,
they failed to get definite information. Once again, when no one expected it,
five new Cardinals were proclaimed, on November 24th, 1608. Two of their
number, Fabrizio Verallo and Giambattista Leni, were natives of Rome.
Verallo owed his promotion to his successful nunciature in Switzerland as well as to
the recommendation of his kinsman Millini. His was an
exemplary life, and he was one of the most rigid of the set of men who were
truly animated by the spirit of their state. Since his duties as a member of
the Congregations of the Index, of Bishops and of Rites, prevented him from
complying with the law of residence, he spontaneously resigned his see of San Severo. In Rome, in his capacity as commendatory abbot of
Sant’ Agnese, he embellished the church and monastery of that Saint, at whose
tomb he ordered eight lamps to be kept burning day and night. During repairs to
the floor of Sant’ Agnese, eight charming reliefs were found, representing
scenes from Greek mythology and legend. These are today one of the treasures of
the palazzo Spada alia Regola. In the church of St.
Augustine, where Verallo was buried, in the chapel
belonging to his family, there is still seen on the adjoining pilaster a
beautiful bust of this noble prince of the Church.
Giambattista Leni had been a fellow student, at Perugia, of his cousin Scipio Borghese, to
whom, even physically, he bore a striking resemblance. They always remained
close friends. In 1611 Leni became bishop of Ferrara: he there held a synod and
introduced the Theatines. By his instructions Giovan Battista Soria adorned the church of the Barnabites, San Carlo ai Catinari, in Rome, with a magnificent façade.
Luigi Capponi and Lanfranco Margotti were worthy colleagues of these two Cardinals. The
former had earned the red hat by acting as treasurer to Paul V, whereas Lanfranco had been his trusted private secretary.
Michelangelo Tonti, the fifth among the appointments of November 24th,
1608, sprang from a very poor family of Rimini. He began by studying for the
law, at Bologna. From there he went to Rome where he saw himself compelled, for
a time, to earn his livelihood by officiating as organist in the church of St. Roch. However, he had the good fortune of making the
acquaintance of Francesco Borghese, and through him that of Cardinal Camillo
Borghese who took him into his service. When Camillo Borghese became Pope he
made Tonti, who had proved his loyalty, general auditor to his nephew Scipio.
In 1607 he named him datarius, in place of Arigoni, and in 1608 he conferred on him the archbishopric
of Nazaret. Tonti had succeeded in acquiring immense
influence over Cardinal Scipio Borghese. He had likewise won the friendship of
the powerful Lanfranco Margotti.
For all that, in the autumn of 1611, a serious disagreement arose between the
two men. Tonti saw himself forced to withdraw into his diocese of Cesena which
had been conferred on him in 1609. He remained there during the whole of Paul V’s
pontificate, for besides Lanfranco there were other
Cardinals having the ear of the Pope who were unfavourably disposed towards him, such as Millini, Capponi, Leni
and Rivarola, and on the other hand Cardinal Scipio
Borghese did not dare to take any steps on behalf of his protege. At Cesena,
Tonti applied himself wholeheartedly to the duties of his office. In his will
he bequeathed his house in Rome to his intimate friend, Joseph of Calasanza, to be turned into an educational establishment
for destitute youths. Thus originated the Collegio Nazareno which, in course of time, became a flourishing
institution.
Tonti’s disgrace was connected with his
jealousy of Domenico Rivarola, a Genoese, who enjoyed
the favour of Cardinal Borghese and Paul V, and who was raised to the purple on
August 17th, 1611. The promotion of that day, which also came as a complete
surprise, created an entirely new situation in the Sacred College, for no less
than eleven new members were appointed. The majority of them were in close alliance with the Borghese and all were excellent men who
had done good work in difficult circumstances.
The Neapolitan, Decio Carafa, had been nuncio
in Flanders and Spain. Rivarola happened to be acting
as nuncio extraordinary in France during the critical period that followed the
assassination of Henry IV. Subsequently he happily composed a dangerous quarrel
between the people of Rieti and Cantalice, in the
Sabine country. The Siennese, Metello Bichi, had long been a confidant of the Pope who had
employed him in a number of difficult affairs. As for Giacopo Serra, he had carried out the delicate task of
treasurer so successfully that he retained it for a time even as Cardinal.
Among the Cardinals created in 1611, two were natives of Rome, viz.
Crescenzi and Lancelloti. Pietro Paolo Crescenzi was
a disciple of Philip Neri and his piety as well as
his strong sense of justice had won him the favour of Paul V. Orazio Lancellotti, a nephew of Cardinal Scipio, had so
proved his worth as an auditor of the Rota that Tonti met with no difficulty
when he suggested his elevation to the Pope, though it was precisely this that
eventually led to the breach between him and Millini.
It was likewise Tonti who drew Paul V’s attention to Filippo Filonardi who had
been successively bishop of Aquino, governor of Fermo, and lastly, vice-legate
at Avignon. The Florentine, Giambattista Bonsi, owed his nomination both to his splendid work as
bishop of Beziers and to the recommendation of the Queen of France. The
Spaniard, Gaspar Borja, owed his hat to the prayers of Philip III. It is
symptomatic of the return to greater seriousness of life at that period that
Borja found it difficult to make people forget his descent from the family of
Alexander VI.
In compliance with the disposition made by Sixtus V in respect to the representation of the religious Orders in the Sacred
College, the Pope added to the above-named the Franciscan Conventual, Felice Centini, and the General of the Dominicans, Agostino Galamina, a man of strict life and ardent zeal for the
reform.
More than four years elapsed before a fresh creation followed the
numerous one of August, 1611, which had called forth
the displeasure of the Spanish government. In the meantime no less than eleven Cardinals had died, among them the faithful Lanfranco Margotti, hence ten
nominations were made on December 2nd, 1615. France was represented by Louis de
Guise, who was chosen out of consideration for Louis XIII, but who was soon to
give proofs of his utter unworthiness; Spain was represented by Gabriello Trejo Paniaqua and by
the devout Baldassare Sandoval; Venice by Francesco Vendramin.
The Florentine, Uberto Ubaldini, was justly entitled
to the purple by reason of the splendid way in which he had carried out his
duties as nuncio in France. The Roman, Tiberio Muti, a distant relative of Paul V, and who had served the
Pope for a number of years, justified his election by
his magnificent work in the diocese of Viterbo, which
had been granted to him in 1605, and which he never left. Giulio Savelli, likewise a Roman, had distinguished himself by his prudence
and zeal as nuncio in Savoy. To gratify the Grand Duke of Florence, the purple
was bestowed not only upon his pleasure-loving son, Carlo de Medici, but on
another relative as well, the Roman, Alessandro Orsini, of the line of Bracciano, a great friend of the Jesuits. The elevation of
Vincenzo Gonzaga was due to his brother having laid aside the purple on
November 16th, 1615, to enable him to assume the government of the duchy of
Mantua with a view to preventing the line from becoming extinct. Cardinal Ferdinando,
as in duty bound, had asked the Pope's consent to his renunciation; it was
readily granted. Morally the two Gonzagas had sunk to
a very low level; their degenerate life foreshadowed the doom of the ancient
princely house. When Vincenzo contracted a secret marriage with Isabella
Gonzaga, the widow of Ferrante Gonzaga, prince of Bozzolo,
the Cardinals, in a consistory of September 5th, 1616, decreed that he had
forfeited his dignity. The Pope confirmed their sentence.2Since that time no
Gonzaga had been in a position to aspire to the
purple.
In the creation of December 2nd, 1615, Paul V had reserved one name in
petto. It was published on April 11th, 1616; it was that of the bishop of
Vienna, Melchior Klesl, on whose behalf the emperor had intervened.
On September 19th of the same year the Sacred College received an
increase of six new members, all men of merit. They were: Alessandro Ludovisi, since 1612 archbishop of Bologna
and mediator of the peace between Spain and Savoy; Ladislao d'Aquino, nuncio in Switzerland and subsequently
governor of Perugia; Ottavio Belmosto, vice-legate of
the Romagna and subsequently a member of the Consulta; Pietro Campori, majordomo to Cardinal Scipio Borghese; Matteo Priuli, son of the doge of Venice, and Scipio Cobelluzio, Secretary for Latin briefs.
Two smaller promotions gave satisfaction to the pressing demands of the
French and Spanish governments. On March 26th, 1618, the purple was bestowed
upon the all-powerful minister of Philip III, the duke of Lerma, then a
widower, and on the excellent bishop of Paris, Henri de Gondi. On July 29th,
1619, the son of the king of Spain, Ferdinando, only ten years old, became a
member of the Sacred College. In 1620, the Cardinal-Infante was appointed
administrator of the archdiocese of Toledo and in that capacity he distinguished himself both as an able administrator and as a defender of
ecclesiastical immunity. At a later date he won great
popularity for himself as regent of the Low Countries. Soon after the arrival
of the new viceroy in Brussels, Van Dyck painted his portrait, in the
magnificent robes which he wore at his solemn entry into the capital.
The elevation of the Infante of Spain occasioned a good deal of worry
and jealousy in France. Since it was necessary to fill the many gaps made by
death in the ranks of the Sacred College in 1618 and 1619, the French
ambassador, Coeuvres, began a vigorous campaign in
view of the impending nomination. This creation, in which the decisive factor
was the prospect of the conclave which, in view of Paul’s age, could not be
very distant, took place on January 11th, 1621, only a few months before the
death of the Borghese Pope. Coeuvres had done his
utmost to secure the nomination of the bishop of Luçon,
Richelieu, and to prevent that of Pignatelli, which was also opposed by a court
clique supported by Farnese and Montalto. Even at the last hour, on January
10th, 1621, the envoy remonstrated with the Pope with such insistence that a
violent scene ensued. However, Coeuvres failed to get
his wish. The only concession that France managed to secure was the nomination
of Louis de Nogaret de Lavalette, a warrior rather
than an ecclesiastic and one who never took orders. As against these, the other
princes of the Church proved worthy of their elevation. They were: Eitel Frederick, count of Hohenzollern; the Venetian,
Pietro Valier; the Milanese, Giulio Roma; the Genoese, Agostino Spinola, and the loyal assistants of Cardinal Scipio
Borghese, namely, Cesare Gherardi and Stefano
Pignatelli. To these the Pope adjoined three other men of the very first rank:
Francesco Cennini, Desiderio Scaglia, and Guido Bentivoglio.
Francesco Cennini, a scion of a noble family
of Sienna, was endowed with an extraordinary capacity for work and this he put
unreservedly at the disposal of Paul V. At the time of his nomination he held the post of nuncio at the Spanish court. For the Borghese Pope he
cherished an attachment so constant and so strong that shortly before his
death, in 1645, he made arrangements for his body to
be laid to rest at the feet of Paul V. At San Marcello, in the Corso, on the right hand side of the entrance, the monument of Cennini may be seen adorned with his statue, which his
nephews erected in his honour.
Desiderio Scaglia likewise sprang from an aristocratic family. At an early age he entered
the Order of St. Dominic. His active career began in his native city of
Cremona; subsequently he also worked in other parts of Lombardy. In view of his
piety and learning, Clement VIII made him Inquisitor in Upper Italy. Paul V
called him to Rome and entrusted to him the important charge of Commissary
General of the Roman Inquisition.
Guido Bentivoglio, born in 1579, at Ferrara, was a man of outstanding
ability. He began his career as Cameriere Segreto of Clement VIII. Under Paul V he held the
nunciature of the Low Countries from 1607 until 1615, and that of France from
1616 till 1621; in all those charges he gave proof of an uncommon aptitude for
diplomacy. The famous portrait by Van Dyck, which now adorns the Palazzo Pitti, is a speaking likeness of the shrewd statesman. His
features appear small but they are distinguished; the
forehead is lofty; the beard thin and pointed; the slender fingers loosely hold
a sheet of paper. The portrait may well be described as the world’s noblest
painting of a Cardinal. The painter Claude Lorrain also found a patron in the art-loving Bentivoglio. His contemporaries vie with one
another in their praise of this shrewd and talented man who cast an
extraordinary spell on all who came in contact with him. Bentivoglio was a brilliant orator as well as a very able writer. His
history of the war in the Low Countries, his diplomatic reports, above all, his
letters, which were in part published during his lifetime, won him a name in
the literary world. Every page of this correspondence reveals the skilled
diplomatist, polished by constant intercourse with the most refined society, as
well as the mature observer. The history of the defection of the Low Countries
which Bentivoglio wrote under Urban VIII, owes its beginning to his prolonged
sojourn at the court of Brussels. The same subject was also being treated at
that time by the Jesuit Famiano Strado.
The intrinsic value of the latter’s work far surpasses that of Bentivoglio,
though the Cardinal’s book met with much greater success. This he owed to his
pleasing style more than to anything else, though he did not escape the
propensity towards affectation and artificiality of style which were so
prevalent at the time. Skilfully written, brilliant
and full of interest are the personal Memoirs of Bentivoglio; these, however,
only appeared after his death. He began them in his sixty-third year and they were planned to cover the whole of his career.
Unfortunately, the Cardinal, whose health had never been robust, died before he
had completed even the first part, which only reaches the year 1601.
The detailed and attractive account of the court of Clement VIII and of
his Cardinals, of the Jubilee of 1600, and of Cardinal Aldobrandini’s embassy to France, contains a quantity of very reliable information. The
discretion which his position as a Cardinal imposed on Bentivoglio prevented
him from relating a great many things which the ambassadors, on their part,
were free to report in their secret dispatches. Nevertheless he did not hesitate freely to blame the nepotism of Clement VIII, and he made
no mystery of his opinion of Cardinals Aldobrandini, Sforza, and Deti. On the whole, however,
Bentivoglio prefers soft to glaring colours. The calm
and tranquillity of the last years of his life, which
had not been without its fair share of bitter hours, are clearly reflected in
his Memoirs. It is impossible to read without emotion the preface in which the
Cardinal describes the contradictory feelings that fill him as he looks back
upon his life. Worn out by the labours of a long
life, the old man sings the praises of divine grace which called him to the
ecclesiastical state, brought him, as a young man, into the entourage of
Clement VIII, and led him, under Paul V, to the courts of Brussels and Paris,
and finally into the Sacred College. “When I consider”, he adds, “that in spite of the many graces I have received from God, I have
not always rendered to the Church proportionate services, I am overcome by a
sharp feeling of compunction. By offering to God the sacrifice of a contrite
heart I hope to receive pardon in the short time which may still be granted to
me”. The presentiment of his death was soon to be realized: Bentivoglio died on
September 7th, during the conclave of 1644, at the moment when the tiara, for which he had so long striven, was actually hovering over
his head. He found a resting place in San Silvestro al Quirinale, but until
1771 no monument, not even as much as an inscription, recalled the memory of a
man who had been so long one of the most eminent members of the Sacred College.
Spread of Christianity in Missionary
Countries.
|